Maybe because it is settled and not proven in court?
Maybe because it is settled Right, this is why it confuses me because it's been declared settled, a formal resolution outside of the court, the matter is resolved independently between the parties. It seems odd to settle this kind of class-action allegation while continue making statements about it after the fact. Is my understanding of this incorrect?
Yes. Companies often issue press statements after settling a case.
Maybe because it is settled and not proven in court?
Maybe because it is settled Right, this is why it confuses me because it's been declared settled, a formal resolution outside of the court, the matter is resolved independently between the parties. It seems odd to settle this kind of class-action allegation while continue making statements about it after the fact. Is my understanding of this incorrect?
Settlement offers this fun gap where they've paid people to not pursue them further, but don't have to actually admit they did anything wrong. And obviously, Google doesn't want people to believe they discriminate against people unfairly, so of course if they legally can, they're going to stand by their position that they don't. Even if they do and had to pay people to settle a case for it.
Maybe because it is settled Right, this is why it confuses me because it's been declared settled, a formal resolution outside of the court, the matter is resolved independently between the parties. It seems odd to settle this kind of class-action allegation while continue making statements about it after the fact. Is my understanding of this incorrect?
Settlement offers this fun gap where they've paid people to not pursue them further, but don't have to actually admit they did anything wrong. And obviously, Google doesn't want people to believe they discriminate against people unfairly, so of course if they legally can, they're going to stand by their position that they don't. Even if they do and had to pay people to settle a case for it.
And obviously, Google doesn't want people to believe they discriminate against people unfairly, so of course if they legally can, they're going to stand by their position that they don't
This is about on par with where my thinking was on this. I'm aware that these settlements are often contingent upon agreements from both parties regarding disclosing details of the settlement, and I suppose I assumed there was something in place here that prevented parties from speaking out about the settlement other than to release a statement saying 'a settlement was reached'.
Although it has settled the case, Google denies the allegations that it was unfairly dismissive of older applicants. Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
>Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
You know that thing we totally denied? Now that we've settled, we can admit it.
Although it has settled the case, Google denies the allegations that it was unfairly dismissive of older applicants. Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
Because sometimes it's cheaper to settle, even if you didn't do something.
Google has salaried in-house counsel. I'm pretty sure they could afford to go to court more easily than the plaintiffs.
Because sometimes it's cheaper to settle, even if you didn't do something.
Google has salaried in-house counsel. I'm pretty sure they could afford to go to court more easily than the plaintiffs.
Companies settle all the time. It's common for insurance claims, for example. At a not-for-profit organization I'm involved with, a homeless person punched someone on the sidewalk outside their property. The victim then turned around and sued the organization, who had nothing to do with the incident except that it technically happened on their property (which is in an urban area). The president of the organization wanted to fight the case in court (on principle, because he felt that he shouldn't be liable, though he did express sympathy to the victim). The not-for-profit's insurance company wanted none of it and they settled for something like 50K. I'm sure that the insurance company has better lawyers than your average joe, but I'm also sure that they run the numbers and look at the risks (financial and reputational) and then make a decision whether to fight a case in court or not.
Why are these numbers so small? Even more so to the fine for data protection violations. The point of these sort of things are to make companies think twice. While 11m is a lot of cash it is nothing compared to Google's total income, and would not even been half a years salary for those they refused to hire. Seems like they got let off easy on this one.
Considering that it is a claim from a _prospective_ employee about the interview process, the settlement of 35k per person seems relatively generous.
Considering what they would have earned the first year at Google if they weren't discriminated against that looks more like a drop in the bucket.
Settlement offers this fun gap where they've paid people to not pursue them further, but don't have to actually admit they did anything wrong. And obviously, Google doesn't want people to believe they discriminate against people unfairly, so of course if they legally can, they're going to stand by their position that they don't. Even if they do and had to pay people to settle a case for it.
And obviously, Google doesn't want people to believe they discriminate against people unfairly, so of course if they legally can, they're going to stand by their position that they don't This is about on par with where my thinking was on this. I'm aware that these settlements are often contingent upon agreements from both parties regarding disclosing details of the settlement, and I suppose I assumed there was someth…
I think it's common to forbid the parties from saying derogatory comments about the other party. Google can continue to say whatever it wants about itself.
Aka, the plaintiffs probably can't argue with Google's claim that they don't age discriminate, and Google probably can't say bad things about the people that sued them for it. But Google can continue to claim it treats all applicants fairly.
Although it has settled the case, Google denies the allegations that it was unfairly dismissive of older applicants. Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
Because last time Google denied doing something like this it turned out there was a paper trail all the way to the CEO.
(The top email basically said: why are you emailing me this. This is illegal. Don't create a paper trail!!)
Why are these numbers so small? Even more so to the fine for data protection violations. The point of these sort of things are to make companies think twice. While 11m is a lot of cash it is nothing compared to Google's total income, and would not even been half a years salary for those they refused to hire. Seems like they got let off easy on this one.
Isn't it normal for class-action lawsuits to have a low payout per person?